Core i7 Extreme 965 in action

[WaitingForNehalem]

Originally posted by: jaredpace

Originally posted by: WaitingForNehalem

Can you comment on this? http://en.expreview.com/2008/1...-qx9770.html#more-1008

"In a recent document sent to partners, Intel pointed out that when comparing Core i7-965 to a QX9770, we can get 52% more 3D gaming performance"

WTF! holy shnikes i hope that's true.

Of course it's true. Why would Intel invest in new socket, new chipset, new tock, and new design features only to have it perform marginally better than Core 2. They obviously make a lot of money off Core 2, so wouldn't they need a large performance increase to entice people to the new platform?

 

[SlowSpyder]

Originally posted by: WaitingForNehalem

Originally posted by: jaredpace

Originally posted by: WaitingForNehalem

Can you comment on this? http://en.expreview.com/2008/1...-qx9770.html#more-1008

"In a recent document sent to partners, Intel pointed out that when comparing Core i7-965 to a QX9770, we can get 52% more 3D gaming performance"

WTF! holy shnikes i hope that's true.

Of course it's true. Why would Intel invest in new socket, new chipset, new tock, and new design features only to have it perform marginally better than Core 2. They obviously make a lot of money off Core 2, so wouldn't they need a large performance increase to entice people to the new platform?

Ask AMD about AM2 then. That's a pretty big claim, awesome if true. But, we simply don't know what the circumstances are there. Is that with Intel's integrated graphics that will like the DDR3 bandwidth more, and rely on the CPU to do somethings more efficiently, or is that with a GTX280? We'll know soon enough.

 

[WaitingForNehalem]

Originally posted by: SlowSpyder

Originally posted by: WaitingForNehalem

Originally posted by: jaredpace

Originally posted by: WaitingForNehalem

Can you comment on this? http://en.expreview.com/2008/1...-qx9770.html#more-1008

"In a recent document sent to partners, Intel pointed out that when comparing Core i7-965 to a QX9770, we can get 52% more 3D gaming performance"

WTF! holy shnikes i hope that's true.

Of course it's true. Why would Intel invest in new socket, new chipset, new tock, and new design features only to have it perform marginally better than Core 2. They obviously make a lot of money off Core 2, so wouldn't they need a large performance increase to entice people to the new platform?

Ask AMD about AM2 then. That's a pretty big claim, awesome if true. But, we simply don't know what the circumstances are there. Is that with Intel's integrated graphics that will like the DDR3 bandwidth more, and rely on the CPU to do somethings more efficiently, or is that with a GTX280? We'll know soon enough.

You mean AM3?

 

[magreen]

Originally posted by: SlowSpyder

Originally posted by: WaitingForNehalem

Originally posted by: jaredpace

Originally posted by: WaitingForNehalem

Can you comment on this? http://en.expreview.com/2008/1...-qx9770.html#more-1008

"In a recent document sent to partners, Intel pointed out that when comparing Core i7-965 to a QX9770, we can get 52% more 3D gaming performance"

WTF! holy shnikes i hope that's true.

Of course it's true. Why would Intel invest in new socket, new chipset, new tock, and new design features only to have it perform marginally better than Core 2. They obviously make a lot of money off Core 2, so wouldn't they need a large performance increase to entice people to the new platform?

Ask AMD about AM2 then. That's a pretty big claim, awesome if true. But, we simply don't know what the circumstances are there. Is that with Intel's integrated graphics that will like the DDR3 bandwidth more, and rely on the CPU to do somethings more efficiently, or is that with a GTX280? We'll know soon enough.

It can't be with Intel integrated graphics. 52% more than 0 is 0!

 

[myocardia]

Originally posted by: magreen
It can't be with Intel integrated graphics. 52% more than 0 is 0!

Umm, 52% more than 1 is 1.52, which is a 52% improvement.

 

[Zap]

Originally posted by: SlowSpyder
I was way more excited to see that cool little water cooling/dual 9800GTX+ kit. Now that looked pretty cool!

Just an averate Thermaltake unit. Nothing to write home about. You can definately do better piecing together your own kit. However, these are probably decent for those who want a pre-built kit that they can just slap into their rig without getting their hands wet.

Originally posted by: aigomorla
I know i got my neha b4 fugger, if anyone is wondering.

And if anything JCornel was ahead of all of us to neha. :T

I don't even know when we got ours, but we had two odd motherboards sitting in a corner for a few weeks and one day my boss was like "oh, here's one of the CPUs that came with those, put it together and mess with it." Uh, okay. Unfortunately I've been too busy to do much with it.

 

[magreen]

Originally posted by: myocardia

Originally posted by: magreen
It can't be with Intel integrated graphics. 52% more than 0 is 0!

Umm, 52% more than 1 is 1.52, which is a 52% improvement.

I can has reading?

 

[Tempered81]

Originally posted by: WaitingForNehalem

Originally posted by: jaredpace

Originally posted by: WaitingForNehalem

Can you comment on this? http://en.expreview.com/2008/1...-qx9770.html#more-1008

"In a recent document sent to partners, Intel pointed out that when comparing Core i7-965 to a QX9770, we can get 52% more 3D gaming performance"

WTF! holy shnikes i hope that's true.

Of course it's true. Why would Intel invest in new socket, new chipset, new tock, and new design features only to have it perform marginally better than Core 2. They obviously make a lot of money off Core 2, so wouldn't they need a large performance increase to entice people to the new platform?

At XS they say the 52% is bogus and it's more like 5 -10% over yorkfield and sometimes slower:http://www.xtremesystems.org/f...howthread.php?t=203843

"Sorry but Nehalem gaming boost over QX9770 will be 5 - 10 % :| Only 3DMark Vantage's CPU-test and Lost Planet's Cave timedemo will get huge improvements since those support 8 threads."

slower in some of these:
http://diy.pconline.com.cn/cpu...s/0809/1426985_14.html

 

[fgsky8526]

i7 CPU can support Turbo Mode, and can add 1 ration speed when CPU run at high loading.
I come from China. You can add my MSN(justinfeng@live.com). And I will tell you more details.

 

[Dadofamunky]

Originally posted by: myocardia
For gaming, a Yorkfield quad is only ~10% slower, at the same clockspeed. Since a Q6600 is ~5% slower clock-for-clock with gaming than the current Yorkfields, it stands to reason that it would be ~15% slower at the same speed. Now, if you were talking about other types of uses, especially ones that can take advantage of 8 threads, there'dbe no contest.

When productivity and content creation software is common that actually does that, I'll probably be moldering in my grave... :roll: Then again, much of the stuff I do doesn't even need TWO threads, and content creation is usually very linear. I'd freakin' settle for full 64-bit compatibility... I could see the high-end 3D modeling packages supporting it sooner rather than later.

Originally posted by: fgsky8526
i7 CPU can support Turbo Mode, and can add 1 ration speed when CPU run at high loading.
I come from China. You can add my MSN(justinfeng@live.com). And I will tell you more details.

Turbo Mode. Shades of the bad old days of the 8088!